I.Our Wayward Minds Mind, Knowledge, and Belief Course Website Brain, Mind, and Belief: The Quest for Truth “We are not trapped in some kind of original sin, only original stupidity. And stupidity can be overcome by a determined effort of intelligence.” Colin Renfrew

Topics  The mind and its quest for truth  Can we rely on our minds?  Processes of the mind  Linguistic relativity  Language, thought, and reality: Words, concepts, things  The transparency illusion  Mental models of the world  Tricks played by the mind that distort its operation 2

Can we rely on our minds?  We think we are the smart animals “Homo sapiens” Large brains  We like to rely on our minds  What else have we got? For thinking For seeking the truth about  the world  who we are  what are we doing here?  But trusting our minds can be dangerous 3

The quest for truth  A natural activity of humans  The means/instrument: our minds  Is this instrument reliable?  Seeing the world through tinted glasses  What if you don’t even know you are wearing glasses? 4 It is perfectly possible that the truth is beyond our reach, in virtue of our intrinsic cognitive limitations, and not merely beyond our grasp in humanity’s present stage of intellectual development. But I believe that we cannot know this, and that it makes sense to go on seeking a systematic understanding of how we and other living things fit into the world. Thomas Nagel

Processes of the Mind  Perceiving  Thinking  Managing activity  Remembering  Learning  Managing beliefs Acquiring Maintaining Modifying 5 Language plays a big role in all these processes

Some ways language influences thought  Allows formulation of precise thoughts Bacon: “Writing maketh an exact man”  Allows communication of thoughts  The medium of scientific, commercial, legal, philosophical, educational, etc. exchange, agreement, formulation  Provides conceptual categories for organizing thoughts 6

Linguistic Relativity Language and Thought Different Languages, Different Thoughts? Question: Do people who speak different languages think differently?

Questions about Linguistic Relativity  Does language influence thought?  Does thought influence language?  What is the difference between language and thought?  Is there a difference between language and thought?  Can we have thinking without language?  What is thought/thinking? 8

A Common Assumption Expressions in language directly describe (or ask about, or otherwise make statements about) the world Is this assumption correct? 9

This Assumption is not Supported  We do not talk about the world directly, but.. About our internal (mental) models of the world I.e., about our construals  about our conceptual systems  about “virtual reality” Virtual reality: one’s mental model of reality 10

The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis  Also known as The Whorf hypothesis The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis  Edward Sapir ( )  Benjamin Lee Whorf ( )  Every language has its own way of categorizing experience  People who speak different languages think differently  People who speak different languages live in different (mental-social) worlds 11

And before Sapir and Whorf..  Nineteenth Century Max Müller (Germany, U.K.) Wilhelm von Humboldt (Germany) William Dwight Whitney (U.S.A.)  Early twentieth century Franz Boas (Germany, U.S.A.) 12

Benjamin Lee Whorf, “…the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds…. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way — an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified by the patterns of our language.” Benjamin Lee Whorf 13

Whorf on relativity From this fact proceeds what I have called the “linguistic relativity principle,” which means, in informal terms, that users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers, but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world. Benjamin Lee Whorf (1945) 14

Another quote Whorf 1956:214 We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity, which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated. Benjamin Lee Whorf (1945) 15

Reactions to Whorf ’ s Ideas  … have been controversial from the start  Whorf may be better known outside linguistics than any other linguist (except Chomsky)  Prevailing opinion in linguistics has been opposed to Whorf’s ideas  But there has also been a minority view all along, that he was really on to something  An enormous amount of publication has resulted, pro and con 16

The argument for linguistic relativity  Thinking is inextricably bound up with language  Different languages conceptualize human experience differently  Different grammars point peoples to different observations and different evaluations of similar external phenomena  Therefore, thinking patterns vary from one language to another.  People who speak different languages live in different worlds 17

The argument against linguistic relativity  Thinking follows universal patterns  There is a universal ‘language of thought’  Basic thought patterns come from Universal properties of the human body Universal properties of orientation in space and time Universal features of the environment  Sky, land, sun, rain, water, etc. Universal properties of perception and cognition  Therefore, thought patterns do not vary from language to language  Thought gets ‘translated’ into different languages 18

Linguistic Relativity: Pro & Con Pro  Thinking is inextricably bound up with language  Thinking patterns vary from one language to another  People who speak different languages live in different worlds Con  Thinking follows universal patterns  Thinking is independent of particular languages  Differences between different languages are actually pretty superficial, don’t affect thinking 19

The Naive Theory of Meaning  Words in a one-one correspondence with reality  The world is made up of objects, and for every type of object there is a word  Different peoples use different languages to speak about same world 20

Alternative Theory  Words represent reality only indirectly  Every language has its own way of categorizing the objects of the world  People who speak different languages live in different worlds 21

Rocks English rock rocks tyhpi tyhtyhpi Mono 22

Plural vs. Distributive In Mono, what matters is not how many, but in how many places 23

Compare… ’fruit’ ‘fruit’ 24

Types of Rocks Large or Medium Small, One Piece Small, Many Pieces rock pebble gravel 25

Types of Rocks – Mono Rough or jagged Smooth (as in streambed) Large or Medium Small, One Piece Small, Many Pieces tyhpipa’oohpy 26

Exercise: Beards  Questions  What are asking about? 27

Thr ee distinct levels  The World  The Conceptual System  The Linguistic System External Internal 28

The internal and the external Conception Language Perception Sensing In the mind Interface 29

The World  Infinitely varied  No boundaries  No two things exactly alike  Everything changes  “Kaleidoscopic flux” 30

The meaning of “ dog ” Perceptual properties of dogs Dogs in the world and their properties In the Mind The World Outside Conceptual properties of dogs 31

Meaning is conceptualization  The meanings of linguistic forms are in our conceptual systems, not in the outside world 32

Our mental models of the world All imposition of structure in our mental models is accomplished at the cost of ignoring some properties of the phenomena modeled (Compare the map) 33

Direct experience The only thing we experience directly is our own mental activity What we apprehend as direct experience of reality is actually being filtered by the mind 34

Direct Knowledge ”…since the activity of our mind is the only part of Nature directly known to us, its laws are the only ones that we can justifiably call laws of Nature.” Jakob von Uexkull Theoretical Biology (1928) 35

Its not just things  Social Relationships  Processes  Qualities  Perceptual properties  Space, Time  Etc. The same for all people, or different for speakers of different languages? 36

Techniques of Simplification  Categorization  Segmentation Requires assumption of boundaries  The illusion of enduring objects 37

Categories and Boundaries How do categories and boundaries get built? By emphasizing some properties while ignoring other properties This is not only simplification — it is distortion of reality 38

Categories  There are no categories in nature  All categories are in the mind – in our internal mental microcosms  Making/assuming categories seems to be a universal property of mind 39

Segmentation  Some features and combinations of features are distinguished – mentally separated from – the “kaleidoscopic flux”  Often involves the assumption of boundaries (to aid the distinction ) 40

Boundaries  Mountain and Valley  Land and Sea  Automobiles  The Human Body  The Sun 41

Boundaries  There are no boundaries in nature  All boundaries are in the mind – in our internal mental microcosms  Making/assuming boundaries seems to be a universal property of mind 42

The Illusion of Enduring Objects  Sunshine  A River  Boston  Cape Cod  Joe Biden  Your Body A.k.a. The illusion of self-identity through time 43

Three Worlds?  As we have seen, there are two worlds to consider External (the real world) Internal (the microcosm, the mental world)  Categories  Boundaries  Enduring objects  And there is another.. 44

Three Worlds  1. The real world  2. Our internal microcosm  3. The projected world Projected from our minds to the outside world  Therefore, appears to be “out there” We tend to equate it with the real world  It takes special effort not to do so 45

The World we See (#3)  The world we see is projected from our mental models  Categorization necessarily entails ignoring some properties  As a distorted world it is also to some extent an illusion  Inevitably our representations of reality are filled with illusions 46

The Real World  Infinitely varied  No boundaries  No two things exactly alike  Everything changes  “Kaleidoscopic flux” 47

The Transparency Illusion  The illusion that the cognitive system is transparent, hence gives us an undistorted view of the world  Actually, it not only simplifies, it hides from us the fact that it is doing so 48

The Linguistic System  Means of talking/thinking about the conceptual system  Also provides means of thinking to oneself about The world (?) Our conceptual system  Illusion: we think we are talking about the world directly The Transparency Illusion  The illusion that our minds are transparent, hence that we see the world as it is 49

The Conceptual System  Organizes the phenomena of the world  Inevitably, it simplifies Boundaries Categories Enduring Objects  Virtual Reality Example: Fictive motion That highway goes to Providence 50

Every cognitive system is a model  Cognitive systems necessarily depend upon simplification: boundaries, categories, etc.   everyone’s cognitive system is necessarily a system of illusions  It would be impossible for all people, despite their different languages and cultures, to share the same set of illusions 51

Different languages..  Have different categories  Segment the world differently Example: kinds of rocks 52

Quotation from B.L. Whorf … every language is a vast pattern system … in which are culturally ordained the forms and categories by which the personality not only communicates, but also analyzes nature, … channels his reasoning, and builds the house of his consciousness. Benjamin Lee Whorf (1945) 53

Past, Present, Future  In the English way of thinking.. Time is linear  From past, thru present, to future  Past and future extend from present  From a cognitive point of view.. Past is memory or hearsay Future is prediction  and planning  and/or worrying 54

Time as Metaphorical Space  In English.. The future lies ahead The past is behind us  Similarly, in Mandarin.. qiantu (front-road) ‘ one ’ s future ’ qianjing (front-scene) ‘ prospect’ ’  But the metaphor provides a choice: Future ahead, past behind Past ahead, future behind 55

Time as Metaphorical Space  ‘ahead ’ and ‘behind ’ are spatial terms  Compare ‘future’ and ‘past’ No spatial reference They refer only to time  Using spatial terms for time is metaphor 56

Time as Metaphorical Space The future is ahead The past is behind us PAST FUTURE 57

Time as Metaphorical Space In Navajo and Aymara: The future is behind The past is ahead PAST FUTURE 58

The Illusion of Mental Transparency  Illusion: We think we are talking and thinking about the world  Most people think that the future really is ahead, that it’s not just metaphor  We are actually talking and thinking about our conceptual systems  The transparency illusion The illusion that our perceptual and conceptual systems are transparent — they are showing us the world as it is 59

Implication of the Transparency Illusion  The illusion: The cognitive system is transparent, hence gives us an undistorted view of the world  Therefore, the mind is not only simplifying, it is hiding from us the fact that it is doing so 60

How far does linguistic relativity extend?  Different languages, different thinking Thought is shaped by language Thought is influenced by language  Also these? Non-linguistic thinking influence by language Perception is influenced by language Behavior is influenced by language  Different languages, different worlds 61

Significant behavioral consequences Example from B. L. Whorf  “Empty” gasoline drum No longer contained fluid But did contain fumes Label on drum: “empty”  Lighted cigarette butt  Tossed into drum  Kaboom !! Example from Whorf: 62

Another hypothesis of Whorf  Grammatical categories of a language influence the thinking of people who speak the language

Example: Grammatical gender  Does talking about inanimate objects as if they were masculine or feminine actually lead people to think of inanimate objects as having a gender?  Could the grammatical genders assigned to objects by a language influence people’s mental representation of objects? Boroditsky (2003)

Experiment: Gender and Associations (Boroditsky et al. 2002)  Subjects: speakers of Spanish or German All were fluent also in English English used as language of experiment  Task: Write down the 1 st 3 adjectives that come to mind to describe each object All the (24) objects have opposite gender in German and Spanish  Raters of adjectives: Native English speakers

Examples:  Key (masc in German, fem in Spanish) Adjectives used by German speakers:  Hard, heavy, jagged, metal, serrated, useful Adjectives used by Spanish speakers:  Golden, intricate, little, lovely, shiny, tiny  Bridge (fem in German, masc in spanish) Adjectives used by German speakers:  Beautiful, elegant, fragile, peaceful, pretty Adjectives used by Spanish speakers:  Big, dangerous, long, strong, sturdy, towering

Boroditsky’s Experiment: Results (Boroditsky et al. 2002)  Result: Adjectives were rated as masculine or feminine in agreement with the gender in subject’s native language

Conclusion I: Linguistic influence on mental processes  Different languages, different thinking Thought is influenced by language Thought is shaped by language  Systems of categories and boundaries are built by language  And not just linguistic thinking Perception is influenced by language Behavior is influenced by language  Stay tuned!  Different languages, different worlds 68

Conclusion II: Mental models  We operate with mental models not directly with the world  They all differ from one another In different language communities In different cultures Also within communities  Interpersonal differences  We each live in our own personal world, different from all others  At most one person in the world has it right  Actually, they are all faulty 69

70